zlacker

>>nickpa+(OP)
Eh. If you don't want to donate, don't, but I don't quite get the outrage here. The Wikimedia Foundation is still small as far as charities go and is visibly making Wikipedia better: the new UI is a breath of fresh air, and given the insane complexity of MediaWiki markup, the visual editor is a piece of unimaginable technical wizardry. Wiktionary is an unheralded gem and even Wikidata is starting to be genuinely useful.

For what it's worth, Charity Navigator gives them 4 out of 4 stars with a 98.33/100 rating: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703

Meanwhile eg the American Cancer Society gets 73/100 and spends more on fundraising than WMF's entire budget, so oncologists can snort blow off hookers in Vegas, but nobody cares.

>>ripper+m8
In some ways Charity Navigator is like the BBB, and people need to take those ratings with a grain of salt.

What is not said here, but I think it was started this article there was a break-down on Twitter [2] recently where someone broke down the grants Wikimedia Foundation gives to other charities, A lot of Wikimedia has become advocacy for social issues not the spread of free information. Some of those Social issues many of the donors to Wikimedia may not agree with, and it being redistributed to some pretty controversial organizations. People donating to Wikimedia thinking they are advancing Wikipedia but in reality the bulk of the foundation spending is issuing grants to other charities.

>>Meanwhile eg the American Cancer Society gets 73/100 and spends more on fundraising than WMF's entire budget

I am reminded of this TED talk[1] from several years ago that talks about fundraising and charity

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...

[2] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1579778161889652736.html

>>phpist+hb
Hey, what is "the BBB" here ?

>>navaat+Wc
Better Business Bureau